Learning in complex, multi-component cognitive systems: Different learning challenges within the same system

The dual origin of lexical perseverations in aphasia: Residual activation and incremental learning

Lexical perseveration, the inappropriate repetition of a previous response, is common in aphasia. Two underlying mechanisms have been proposed: residual activation and incremental learning. Previous attempts to differentiate the two have relied on experimental paradigms that encourage semantically related errors and analysis techniques designed to detect perseverations over short distances, resulting in a bias towards detecting short-lag, semantically related perseverations that both mechanisms can account for. Two key predictions that differentiate these accounts remain untested: only residual activation can explain short-lag, semantically unrelated perseverations, whereas only incremental learning can explain long-lag, semantically related perseverations. In this paper, we used a large set of picture naming trials and a novel analysis technique to test these key predictions in a multi-session study involving six individuals with aphasia. We found clear evidence for both mechanisms in different individuals, demonstrating that either one is sufficient to cause perseveration. Importantly, perseverations due to residual activation were associated with more severely impaired systems than those due to incremental learning, suggesting that a certain degree of structural and functional integrity was necessary for incremental learning. Finally, the results supported a key prediction of the incremental learning account by showing perseverations over longer lags than have previously been reported.

To select or to wait? Response to the commentaries

In [Nozari, N., & Hepner, C. R. (2018). To select or to wait? The importance of criterion setting in debates of competitive lexical selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02643294.2018.1476335], we proposed a theoretical framework for reconciling two seemingly irreconcilable theories of lexical selection: competitive vs. non-competitive selection. The key point in this framework is the division of language production into two separate-albeit interacting-systems: a decision-making framework and a multi-layered system which maps meaning to sound. Technically, this can be accomplished by superimposing a signal detection model onto the distributions of conflict derived from the core dynamics of mapping semantic features to lexical representations. Based on this framework, we argued that a flexible selection criterion could accommodate patterns predicted by both competitive and non-competitive models of lexical selection. Five excellent commentaries posed various questions regarding the necessity, applicability, and scope of the proposed framework. This paper addresses those questions.

To select or to wait? The importance of criterion setting in debates of competitive lexical selection

Competitive accounts of lexical selection propose that the activation of competitors slows down the selection of the target. Non-competitive accounts, on the other hand, posit that target response latencies are independent of the activation of competing items. In this paper, we propose a signal detection framework for lexical selection and show how a flexible selection criterion affects claims of competitive selection. Specifically, we review evidence from neurotypical and brain-damaged speakers and demonstrate that task goals and the state of the production system determine whether a competitive or a non-competitive selection profile arises. We end by arguing that there is conclusive evidence for a flexible criterion in lexical selection, and that integrating criterion shifts into models of language production is critical for evaluating theoretical claims regarding (non-)competitive selection.